1948

[Guest]

I'm humble and proud of it. (just adding some comedy relief)

[Guest]

The statement that "they shall not learn war anymore" (Isa.2:4) is not a statement of a universal disavowal of war in the world. It is a description of the "many people" who have ascended the hill of the Lord, been taught His ways and have chosen to walk in His paths (v.3).

The word which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the LORD will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it. And many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; That He may teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths." For the law will go forth from Zion And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war. Isaiah 2:1-4

Yes, he said, "many people" in verse 3. But if all of this has been fulfilled, I was wonder in what sense "all the nations" (verse 2) have "streamed into the mountain, the house of Yahweh".

Justin Martyr, who lived in the mid-second century, wrote:

“We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each throughout the whole earth changed our weapons of war—our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage—and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified.” (Dialogue, 110)

It is interesting that Justin clearly applied Isaiah 2:1-4 to the present age—not the future millennium (which he happened to believe in).

In reading the context, it does not seem that Justin regarded these words as a total fulfillment in his day, of the prophecy of Micah 4:1-7 which he had just quoted in Chapter 109.

Here is what Justin wrote in Chapter 110 (bolding mine):

And when I had finished these words, I continued: “Now I am aware that your teachers, sirs, admit the whole of the words of this passage to refer to Christ; and I am likewise aware that they maintain He has not yet come; or if they say that He has come, they assert that it is not known who He is; but when He shall become manifest and glorious, then it shall be known who He is. And then, they say, the events mentioned in this passage shall happen, just as if there was no fruit as yet from the words of the prophecy. O unreasoning men! understanding not what has been proved by all these passages, that two advents of Christ have been announced: the one, in which He is set forth as suffering, inglorious, dishonored, and crucified; but the other, in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians, who, having learned the true worship of God from the law, and the word which went forth from Jerusalem by means of the apostles of Jesus, have fled for safety to the God of Jacob and God of Israel; and we who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons, — our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage, — and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified...

It seems to me that Justin was declaring that this prophecy had partial fulfillment at the first coming of Christ, and will have complete fulfillment at the second. For he spoke of the other [advent of Christ], that is the second, as occuring in the days when the man of apostasy "shall venture to do his unlawful deeds against us the Christians, who having learned the true worship of God ..... have changed our warlike weapons ... into ploughshares ..., etc." It seems that he was saying that in that day, when Christ returns the second time, the Christians who will be present then will have ceased to practise war ... although a beginning had been made even while Justin spoke to Trypho.

[Guest]

Paidion,

The prophecy of Isaiah says that "all nations" shall flow into Mt. Zion (A.K.A., the Church—Heb.12:22-23). Since I understand this as applying to the church age, this is fairly self-explanatory. There will ultimately be people of "all nations, tribes, peoples and tongues" (Rev.7:9) who have come into the church and learned the ways of Christ. It seems pretty straight-forward.

Also, even though Justin believed (as we do) that there will be a second advent of Christ, I found no hint in the whole context that you quoted to indicate that Justin applied the words of Micah and Isaiah about the swords and spears to a time after the second advent (i.e., the millennium). It sounds like he is describing nothing beyond the reign of the antichrist in the passage—meaning the millennium is not in his purview. I do not see him using the imagery of the prophetic passages in any way except to say that this is what the Christians now are doing, in contrast to Trypho and the Jews' claims that the prophecies had not been fulfilled.

I don't claim to follow Justin's train of thought at all times, but this passage seems to say just what I claimed it to say, even after the larger context has been examined.

[Guest]

You do not think that in his reference to the "man of apostasy" (or "antichrist" if you will), he refers to one who will appear in a time future to that in which he wrote?

Indeed, did he not clearly write that our Lord will return the second time when the man of apostasy shall venture (future tense) to do his dastardly deeds?

but the other [second advent], in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians

In other words, did he not associate that man's coming, not with "the one" [the first advent of Christ], but with the "other" [the second advent]?

[Guest]

I am not here to contend with the relation of Isaiah 2 to the career of the lawless one. My point is that the passage is identified with a fulfillment in the age of the church, and not in the millennium.

I am not aware of any view that places the man of sin in the millennium, so even if the man of sin is yet future, and if Isaiah's prophecy was restricted to the time of this evil force (which is not stated or implied in Justin's comments), this still identifies it with a fulfillment in the present age of the church.

I am not sure what you are seeing differently in this passage.

[Guest]

I didn't say a word about the millenium in my last post.

What I see in the passage I bolded in my last post from Justin Martryr's dialogue with Trypho and the other Jews, is that the second coming of Christ will occur "when" the man of apostosy does his evil deeds, that is, "during" the time of his activity here on earth, and that that time is future to Justin's time. I think he also implies that, although the beginnings of peace within disciples of Christ applied to his own day (beating swords into ploughshares), it will culminate at the second coming.

Here we are, almost 1900 years later, and the time of the second coming is yet future to us also.

By the way, you may be interested to know that I am rethinking the millenium. There seems to be a few problems with the concept of a millenium here on earth immediately after the second coming.

The most poignant of these problems, as I see them, is both that the days of the apostles are described as "the last days" in several passages, and that the gospel of John records Jesus as having said four times in chapter 6 alone, that concerning anyone who entrusts himself to Him, He will "raise him up at the last day". So if the last days began in apostolic times, and we are still in them, and if Jesus is going to return and raise the believers at the last of these last days, how can there be any days here on earth after the last day?

I have been wondering how to reconcile my understanding of the millenium following Jesus return with these statements, and so far, I can see no way, other than the possibility that it may refer to the last day of this age. The millenium could be another age after the coming of Christ. Or does this concept automatically render me some kind of dispensationalist?

[Guest]

The most poignant of these problems, as I see them, is both that the days of the apostles are described as "the last days" in several passages, and that the gospel of John records Jesus as having said four times in chapter 6 alone, that concerning anyone who entrusts himself to Him, He will "raise him up at the last day". So if the last days began in apostolic times, and we are still in them, and if Jesus is going to return and raise the believers at the last of these last days, how can there be any days here on earth after the last day?

I have been wondering how to reconcile my understanding of the millenium following Jesus return with these statements, and so far, I can see no way, other than the possibility that it may refer to the last day of this age.

The millenium could be another age after the coming of Christ. Or does this concept automatically render me some kind of dispensationalist?

I don't think that would make you a dispensationalist. It would just mean that you see the events taking place in that order.

The only thing I can add is that I am "stuck" with my view because of the very passages you bring up. There is another one that is euqally strong that I can't find a way around.

1 Corinthians 15 states that Christ reigns until the last enemy (death) is defeated. So I take that as Christ is regining now until the end, when there are no more enemies to defeat. 1 Cor 15 goes on to state in verses 49-55 that our resurrection is the end of death. If that is taken at face value then the rapture is the end of all enemies. No tribulation after that point, no more satan, rebellion, etc. It seems to flow right into Revelation 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more. (After judgement that is, which takes place right after the resurrection in Revelation 20 and people are judged, then the restoration takes place)

[Guest]

Hi Paidion,

No, being premillennial doesn't make you some kind of dispensationalist (though, if you were a dispensationalist, it would make you some kind of premillennialist). There is no question that Justin and many of his significant contemporaries were premillennial, and I think they were pretty close to the position that you have held as a premillennialist. But they (and you) were not dispensational.

One of the first things I noticed that made me move away from premillennialism was that Jesus claimed He would raise His disciples "on the last day" (John 6:39, 40, 44. 54), and that He would also judge the wicked "on the last day" (John 12:48). Premillennialism teaches that the saints will be raised before the millennium (Rev.20:4-6), and the lost will be raised and judged after the millennium (Rev. 20:12-15). Either my view of the millennium was wrong, or else there are to be two "last days" with a thousand years (and some change) between them.

My lectures on the millennium go through all the relevant texts, and take the listener through the process by which my views were eventually changed.

My original comments about Justin Martyr (above) were really intended only to provide Crusader with another witness that the world improved after Christ came. I should think that this would be obvious to anyone upon reflection—and especially to a Christian—unless he/she had a very strong theological commitment requiring him/her to deny this. Historic premillennialists do not have such a theological commitment, but dispensationalists do.

[Guest]

One of the first things I noticed that made me move away from premillennialism was that Jesus claimed He would raise His disciples "on the last day" (John 6:39, 40, 44. 54), and that He would also judge the wicked "on the last day" (John 12:48). Premillennialism teaches that the saints will be raised before the millennium (Rev.20:4-6), and the lost will be raised and judged after the millennium (Rev. 20:12-15). Either my view of the millennium was wrong, or else there are to be two "last days" with a thousand years (and some change) between them.

Yes, I can certainly understand why you would think this Steve. But today, I realized that the word "day" in the Scriptures is often used to designate a period of time, even as it is in our day. For example:

Hebrews 3:8
...do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness

Obviously the "day of testing" was much longer than a twelve or twenty-four hour period. Likewise:

2Corinthians 6:2 For he says, "At the acceptable time I have listened to you, and helped you on the day of salvation." Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.

Surely the "day of salvation" is a fairly long period. If it were a single 24-hour period, nearly everyone would miss it. And here's an interesting one:

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of the age. Amen.

Well, literally, it's "a day of an age".

There are many references to "the day of the Lord", and some to "the day of God" and one to "the day of our Lord Jesus Christ".

Suppose "the last day" were the millenium itself! Perhaps the millenium is also "the day of the age". In that case, the resurrection and judgment of the righteous might occur at the beginning of that day, and the resurrection and judgment of the unrighteous at the end of that day.

[Guest]

Paidion,

It is true that the word "day" is flexible, depending upon context. Jesus also places the resurrection of the righteous and that of the wicked in the same "hour" (John 5:28-29). I know that even the word "hour" can mean a longer period in some cases (e.g., 1 John 2:18), but at some point, we need to let the scriptures speak very naturally. The resurrection of the just and the unjust is spoken of as a single even by Paul, in Acts 24:15, and no reference (apart from Revelation 20) has ever been convincingly produced that teaches different times for the two categories to be resurrected.

Paul also places the renovation of the creation (the New Heavens and New Earth) at the time of our own resurrection (Rom.8:19-23). Peter seems to do the same (2 Pet.3:10-13). In particular, Peter says, "We are looking for a New Heavens and a New Earth" (v.13). If Peter believed in a millennial kingdom, it would seem more likely that he would say, "We are looking for the thousand-year reign of Christ on earth (prior to the New Heavens and the New Earth).

Those who believe in a future millennium have to come to terms with the fact that nothing in scripture, prior to Revelation 20, gives the slightest hint of any such future, thousand-year period. The Old Testament references that are popularly applied to the millennium were understood by the New Testament writers (and Jesus) as being fulfilled in the present Messianic age. Where these passages in the Old Testament say anything at all about duration, they use the term "forever" and "there will be no end," etc. No hint of an expectation of a thousand-year, temporary situation.

As with the Old Testament, so also no New Testament writer expressed any belief in a future millennium, except John, in Revelation 20. Even Revelation 20 is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation—only one of which (tyher one that does not take what the rest of scripture says on this topic) would make it teach a future millennium (placing this chapter at odds with the apparent teachings of the rest of scripture).

So to believe in a future millennium, I must either disagree with the New Testament writers about the meanings of a number of Old Testament prophecies, or believe that this significant doctrine was never revealed in any form until the third-to-last chapter of the Bible (which was not even canonized until the end of the fourth century), or else accept the doctrine of the temporal millennium without any scriptural basis whatever.

None of these three options was acceptable to me, so I decided that interpreting Revelation 20 in line with the rest of scripture (most of which is considerably less symbolic and more clear than the Book of Revelation) would be my approach.

It was long after I had reached this position on my own that I discovered that other people had reached such conclusions before I did—other people like most of the ablest theologians of church history. You can imagine the surprise (and relief) that this discovery was to me, having been indoctrinated only in dispensationalism for so many years!

Obviously, the fact that most theologians taught what I now believe does not really influence my believing it myself. I disagree with much that the majority of theologians might have taught. It's just that, when your own studies of the scripture have caused you to be convinced of something that makes you wonder if you are out on a heretical limb, it is encouraging to find that many good men have been up the same tree.